Monday, May 9, 2011

Marriage Wishes Quran

Supreme Court Decision of March 22, 2011.

FIRST .- (...) both TC (S ª 174/85, 175/85, 160/88, 229/88, 111/90, 348/93, 62/94, 78/94 , 244/94, 182/95) and the same room, have pointed out that the right to presumption of innocence does not preclude a conviction in a criminal court can be formed on the basis of a test circumstantial, but the presentation of evidence should satisfy certain requirements to be considered as evidence of guilt sufficient to rebut that presumption constitutional. We agree in stressing as requirements that must satisfy the following circumstantial evidence: that the evidence, which must be plural and uniquely adversarial in nature, are quite reputable, that they flow naturally, following the logic of rules human experience, the consequences of the appellant's involvement in the crime he was charged and that the court must explain the reasoning by which, based on such evidence tested, has become convinced that the defendant made the conduct a crime. In short, as noted by the Constitutional Court Judgments 24/1997 and 68/98, that circumstantial evidence has fully proved facts from which the facts constituting the offense must be deducted from such evidence (facts fully tested) through a reasoned thought process and in accordance with the rules of human criteria, as stipulated in the sentence.